I didn't even think about that!  Of course if you're using
XML there should be no reason it couldn't translate it into
URL-Encoded.  Good call.

But, why the extra step?  I think we're talking about two
different uses or issues here, which is making it hard to
keep on track.  :)  Client validation and data parsing. 

As for in your face alerts, I find most users comfortable
with them since that is how "windows" works.  I know that
without JavaScript it would make some tasks quite a bit
more difficult to accomplish.

innerHTML... interesting.  I suppose instead of an alert
box you just pop a text string on the screen.  Do you use
JavaScript to detect the error?  

Brad
 
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:50:29 -0700
 "Eric Kempter" <EKempter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You are right, it is too complex.  Almost anything that
> you try to do that requires navigating the BOM tree is
> too complex.  This is why XForms in conjunction with
> XHTML (and CGI-BIN) looks so promising!  If you are
> concerned about having to parse XML output, don't be.
>  You can still output multipart/form data or url-encoded
> data with XForms Basic.
> 
> On another note,  I personally don't care for "in your
> face" alerts for errors.  I much prefer providing error
> messaging on the page itself but that's just my
> preference.  I currently use innerHTML to accomplish
> this.
> 

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.